Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

Panama Gnats.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on April 5, 2016

Hey oop! The media midges are on manoeuvres. Dive-bombing unsuspecting celebrity ankles; swarming with righteous innuendo; there is no escape from the garrulous gnats as they mix ‘tax avoidance’ with ‘tax evasion’ and tar every customer of the well established firm of Mossack Fonseca with the suggestion of criminal activity.

An act that was initially described as the benign work ‘of a whistleblower’ turns out to be a grubby hack on the computer network of a firm of lawyers, whereby 11.5 million files were downloaded and offered to a German investigative journalist, who promptly shared them with those arch enemies of the art of hacking – the Guardian and the BBC.

One man’s whistleblower is another man’s hacker. Perhaps Clive Goodman was whistleblowing when he reported based on a voicemail conversation between Prince William and Tom Bradby? It obviously depends on who is doing the reporting!

Once you take your gaze away from the alluring click-bait of famous names wriggling as they attempt to justify having an off-shore account, you are left with a situation whereby confidential files belonging to a firm of lawyers have been hacked and subsequently shared with ‘journalists from more than 80 countries’ on the grounds that this is a ‘moral good’ because some of them might have been engaged in wrong doing.

Can you imagine the outcry if the expensive motor cars of our Canary Wharf brethren returning from the half term ski trips were all comprehensively searched and the contents exposed to the world’s gaze – on the grounds that there was a chance that some would contain cocaine, or additional bottles of that nice Bordeaux that they hadn’t paid the tax on? Or Niqab clad wives coming through Heathrow stripped and exposed to prurient gaze on the grounds that their bomb might look big in that Burka?

When it comes to the ‘rich and powerful’, as the BBC was pleased to describe the hapless victims of this so called ‘leak’, both profiling and hacking are perfectly acceptable. Particularly given the chance to mention Putin and David Cameron’s deceased father in the same sentence. Incidentally, despite the worldwide coverage – Putin’s name doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the data.

I would remind readers that the Guardian’s view of off-shore accounts, tax avoidance, and mitigation of inheritance tax as practised by its founder CP Scott – becomes ‘surely one of the most selfless pieces of tax avoidance in media history’ when it benefits Guardian Media Group – and avoiding ‘ever having to pay tax in Britain‘ when practised by David Cameron’s father.

So much hypocrisy.

Now that we have established that it is perfectly acceptable to hack the offices of a firm of lawyers in order to access personal information held on behalf of all their clients, perhaps we could move onto the computer systems of lawyers employed by some of these media giants. What crimes we could prevent! Remember there is barely a soul in Fleet Street who didn’t claim to have known ante-mortem of Jimmy Saville’s alleged crimes.

Is it morally right that they should have kept quiet when the information concealed in their safes could have been shared with 80 journalists worldwide? Do you really think the North Korean Daily would have quaked in its shoes at the thought of publishing ‘the truth’?

Yet they have done it once again – look carefully at those reports in the media – this information was leaked to the media a year ago, say some, though others say it was up to date to the end of 2015.

Around 370 reporters from 100 media organisations have spent a year analysing and verifying the documents.

Amongst those documents are facsimiles of the passports of individuals who may have done nothing wrong – who exactly are these journalists that have been handed such personal information?

Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have only just been handed their share of the files. Now that the media has had its celebrity click-bait, the tax office can get on with looking at whether anyone has actually done anything wrong.

Had the recipients handed these files over directly to the Tax Offices of the respective clients of Mossack Fosneca, I shouldn’t have been writing this article. It is the hypocritical cant of the media that has got to me. As usual.

So much for their moral high ground.

Is it only the rich who should pay every possible penny of tax that they could, or will all the owners of tax-free ISAs be queuing up to pay the tax they could have avoided? How about that nice plumber you just paid in cash?

a heart warming tale of a Bear in a cool hat and a tiger (should rally be a bull shouldn’t…keep the analogy going) who set off for the mythical tax haven of Panama whilst snacking on strange mushrooms…

Well you have to encourage them when they’re young, I mean, don’t you?

or additional bottles of that nice Bordeaux that they hadn’t paid the tax on?

The Empire of Evil (EU) decrees that as long as those Morgan driving Merchant Bankers paid whatever French tax/duty on their ‘fruity little stallion long in the legs’ of a vino then there is no duty or tax due when they bring it back to England for their own use.

Yet those delightful HMRC duty adminstrators in Dover apply their own invented limit to the amount of legitimate duty-paid fags you can bring in, even for your own use. So much for your lovely EU and the freedom of movement of goods – it doesn’t do what it says on the tin, never has, never will.

Don’t get me started on Border Farce/HMRC and tobacco goods. I used to help Smoking Hot modding the N2D forum. Posted several videos of my encounters with those stalwarts who protect our borders. Joke of it is that it was , many many many years ago, a Customs man who advised me to ‘smuggle’ in tobacco as I was then a non smoker. I miss the old time Customs men, at least they played fair.

Absolutely bob on Mizz Raccoon. Craig Murray, in between blowing his own trumpet, has also speculated that out of the 11 million records, how odd it seems that those mentioned don’t seem to include any targets closer to home. Hmm…

I’m afraid my eyes just glaze over when reading of “11.5 million files”. Surely it’s the task of the scoop of journalists (I had to look-up that collective noun & it seems pretty apt given what they are most often to be found shovelling) to whittle down those ‘millions’ into something more manageable (and meaningful). Hyperbole just bubbles-up into a quickly vanishing froth as the permanently outraged find another topic to moan about – briefly, before once more moving on.

(That slant of shock-journos at Exaro recently explosively revealed another mega-haul of bits of paper: the Church of England had uncovered OVER A MILLION relating to abuse – and this from less than 10% of its dioceses. Extrapolating this pointless number suggests that Dame Lowell ‘Lady’ Goddard will have around 14-million pages of A4 to pore through… Good luck with that!)

I’ll wait for the dust to settle on this one. The ICIJ’s last data-dump was still being covered in the news until fairly recently (here in Spain, at least); no doubt those corporate dodgers are now quite happy to see the torch shone elsewhere:https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks

The sheer hypocracy of the Guardian and others never ceases to amaze me. It is perfectly ok to minimise taxes, who wouldn’t? doesn’t seem to be anything illegal. Also don’t know if you heard that Lydsistrata passed peacefully on Sunday RIP.

Another day another scandal. A normal day really. This one though heralds open season on geese the ones that lay the golden eggs. Envy, unproven facts, mob hysteria, thinking that defies logic or reason is in due process of the law is out. The later has to be or it might deny the mob a hefty slice of the cake. Clamour for a proper investigation into who has who or has not broken the law that cannot happen as it may turn up the fact that those who brought the evidence as yet circumstantial could be as guilty or more so than the ones they are attempting to expose. What about admissibility in some lands the courts would throw this evidence out as being inadmissible due to how it was obtained. If in the end sanity and common sense are restored(fat chance) then all those guilty of or aiding and abetting the committing a crime should be punished. Hacking is against the law is it not and those who profit from it are also in breach of the law. It is a funny world corruption is endemic and those who profess to be going after the corrupt are just as corrupt in the ways they go about it.

I’m going to take you up on this offer, David! Despite being a believer in the magical memory-retaining properties of water molecules you are a holder of a “large number” of shares in a top pharmaceutical company, each one of which goes for over a grand a pop. You are, therefore, a member of the ‘super rich’ (from my perspective at least, down here in the gutter, and emphasized by your tales of ‘character building’ mucking-out of the stables at posh boys’ schools when the closest I came to such activity was scraping dogshit off the bottom of my Clarks’ Commandos – you elite swine!).

I wish to exercise my ‘moral right’ to know exactly where your millions are & how many of them there are. I’ll need scans of all statements, deeds and agreements. (Perhaps you’ve ‘hidden’ a couple of million in the bricks ‘n’ mortar of your Chelsea townhouse?) Deciding whether or not you’ve paid a ‘fair amount’ of tax is beyond my abilities; I would, however, like to see that you have paid a legally-adequate sum, so I’ll need copies of… well, EVERYTHING. Don’t dilly dally or I’ll hit you with a penalty.

Citizens of the world have a moral right to know who is accessing web sites that teach you how to make a bomb, how many they are planning to make, and where they have hidden them – so I guess you will be in favour of an extension to the Investigatory Powers Bill that would make your full browsing history available not just to the police, but to all of us?

If that Investigatory Powers Bill meant I could see Theresa May’s browsing history, or access David Cameron’s bank accounts and their usage, I would say that is a reasonably fair quid pro quo. If it’s good enough to imposed on us, it’s good enough for us to use on them.

@David Citizens of the world have a moral right to know where the super rich are hiding their millions, how much they are hiding, and whether they have paid a fair amount of tax on that money. Gosh David can I pose the corollary of your assertion and that is at what point and in what circumstances do public ‘rights’ (however you might choose to define them and the authority on which you rely for their existence) in respect private matters (assuming you accept any such rights exist and if you deny the existence of such rights your authority for so doing) cease? As a start you seem to confabulate Citizens of the World (individuals in the context of individual qua individual) with representative democratic government (The representatives of Society as a whole qua the individual) Mind you one has to chuckle coz the Prime Minister of one of the oldest democracies in the world (Iceland) has just resigned coz it seems the leading ‘Citizen’ of the Icelandic World appears to rather confabulate public and private moral duties.

I am not sure it would be of any interest and certainly of no value how I personally differentiate between public and private moral duties. personal opinions are dull and mine more than most But in posing the question I did it was to try to address the point David made and explore its value if he was minded to explain it. The framework suggested was morality which is entirely legitimate (though the basis needs to be justified) but inherent in the definitions adopted were individual rights and duties of and in the lives individual cirizens by individual citizens (individual qua individual). He specifically did not invoke any right to know to any institution (based on Democratic Government or otherwise). In trying to assist him to make his argument I tried to steer him towards safer ground to argue rights of knowledge in the affairs of individuals within the context of them being members of Society in which they voluntarily participate. The point is taken by Anna when she says why not turn the papers over to the Revenue (the institution who incidentally has some responsibility theoretical or otherwise to act responsibly with it and subject to some sanction if they don’t)) rather than to the media to exploit it for their own ends without risk of sanction But let me not shy away from your question. The language I adopted was a rough and ready (I am tediously turgid and prolix at the best of times) and i meant nothing more than this On the basis that morality exists then some moral duties are owed by the individual to the world at large . Obviously a duty not to commit murder or a moral duty to pay ones taxes. There is of course an important distinction to be drawn between law and morality since enforcement can only apply in respect of law and law is even an more imperfect tool than morality in achieving outcomes When I spoke of Private morality i had in mind duties one owed to oneself or to those one knew individually. Say the duties owed by a Father to his son. On an individual basis one might feel a moral duty (to argue the basis of which would take ages so I ask you not to ask me to justify it) to give every support to a son. There is something of potential conflict between between what I term the private and the public. Should I for instance further my son’s interests at the expense of others? If so what expense is acceptable ? of not paying or avoiding taxes in order to pay for the best education I can for him ? or using my influence to procure him a job ? in procuring him a job and calling in favours do i breach what i have termed duties of public morality? possibly do I further public morality in setting a good example ? The difficulty of the issue is of course compounded by language but I think there is a distinction to be made be intersection betwen public morality and private morality much as there are distinctions between Tort (legal duties owed to the world at large) and Contract (legal duties owed to those with whom one specifically contracts). The point that fascinates me personally is the intersection …..the boundary if one likes between the two. But let me not be too bland and defensive coz as much as I know myself to be prolix I like to think of myself as pugnacious I believe the world functions best when individuals are individually moral and construe their moral duties extensively and their rights restrictively though correct measurement of moral boundaries is pretty much what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all about. And no Windsock I am not to be drawn (unless you really want to up mano a mano in the pub carpark) on public and private morality within the context of sexual morality

My full browsing history is, as we speak, being looked at, live, by the ‘authorities’. Sometimes they forget to turn of the sound at their end, and I hear doors closing in the background of a youtube film I am watching. I stop the film, but the background sound carries on. Last time I heard an rare opera playing in the background, that I had been listening to earlier in the day. I just hope they are open minded, or at least, men of the World.

You’re certainly the only one here who has the ‘distinction’ of imagining the ‘secret services’ have nowt better to do than watch you conducting an imaginary orchestra in your bedroom as a YouTube video plays!

Yes I would have thought that they had better things to do, after all I did visit them, for three and a half hours, seventeen months ago, long before ‘Nick’, was ever heard of. However, as there seem to be three or four policemen, not park police, or community police, real Met Police, in Brompton Cemetery Earls Court, most days, trying to catch old ladies who’s poodles are off their leads, maybe they have got ‘time on their hands’.

And the result of your wasting three & a half hours of their time is that – in your own words – they decided you were “a nutter”. Such is the fear of being accused, decades down the line, of having ‘covered up’ something or other that the police feel duty-bound to operate what amounts to a drop-in centre for the dot-joining lunatics. Every single prediction or hypothesis dreamt up by yourself has come to nought…

You are also incorrect in stating that no one had heard of ‘Nick’ 17-months ago: he appeared on TV in August 2014 with some Jimmy Savile-madness – had you forgotten? And the official start date for the doomed Op Midland was 17-months-minus-a-week ago anyway! Brompton Cemetery? Er, why would I care?!? Maybe they are there to protect those ‘ragamuffins’, eh?

Well blow me down but I have to agree with David. Tax minimization while perfectly legal has reached alarming levels and the real immorality of this is : it is only available for one sector of society- corporations & the very wealthy. Therefore they have a privilege not enjoyed by the great masses and that is wrong and cannot be justified.

Moreover just because something is legal does not make it right. There are hideous laws around the world where it’s legal to lop of people’s heads in the town square or hang someone until dead because they tried to get some smack through customs.

I think you will also find that the Guardian has itself indulged in tax minimization and have we forgotten the BBC allowed many ’employees” to become artificial companies to avoid tax so they cannot really preach.

Of course the hacking of a law firm, whether they are a dodgy one or not, is a concern but really does show that there is no such thing as secrets in your computer and never will be. I still think we have to await what unfolds. I think the ICIJ are going to deliberately drip feed the media with tidbits for maximum effect. It may be that there is a greater good being done by an illegal act – the hacking- the exposure of what is basically a tiny but obscenely wealthy section of the world’s populace that avoid their fair share of paying for their countries upkeep and let the burden fall unfairly on the poorest citizens.

Someone said that George Soros was involved . Is there a link ?. Two of American’s wealthiest billionaires, one from the ‘left’ George Soros and one from the ‘right’ Warren Buffet have repeatedly said with great urgency that it is tax ‘minimization’ and such schemes that risk destroying Capitalism and plunging the world into the most frightening financial collapse. Perhaps Soros believes he serves a greater purpose by aiding an internet hack.

The repercussions are pretty significant though and the media for good or bad will go with the flow, the mass of readers who are not in the top financial bracket (and The Mail can hardly pontificate as it’s owners live abroad in tax shelters ..but they will). Here in Australia our esteemed prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull worth over $500M (ironically made from internet speculation) has plunged in the polls after a wonderful honeymoon with the electorate and part of that loss is due to the fact it has been revealed he parks much of his fortune (artificially) in The Caymans. The proles are not happy. If David Cameron is found to have become rich from his dad’s tax schemes, how can he continue to tell the masses how they should live?

I agree with much of this but baulk at the phrase “obscenely wealthy”. At what point does an individual’s wealth become ‘obscene’? Surely this a subjective opinion based on one’s own financial circumstances, and by lumping all the Panamanian ‘revelations’ together those with an inheritance of a few million to protect are being tarred with the brush of the dictator who has siphoned off billions…

The notion that criminals might be hiding their ill-gotten gains in the same ‘haven’ is as revelatory as the fact that a scan through a list of account-holders at your nearest high-street bank will similarly throw up plenty of wrong-‘uns. I find it odd that individuals in a suitably swarthy land are being targetted when the Luxemborg stuff linked to above lies festering at the heart of Europe:

“In early November 2014, just days after becoming head of the commission, Juncker was hit by media disclosures—derived from a document leak known as LuxLeaks—that Luxembourg under his premiership had turned into a major European centre of corporate tax avoidance. With the aid of the Luxembourg government, companies transferred tax liability for many billions of euros to Luxembourg, where the income was taxed at a fraction of 1%. Juncker, who in a speech in Brussels in July 2014 promised to “try to put some morality, some ethics, into the European tax landscape”, was sharply criticized following the leaks. A subsequent motion of censure in the European parliament was brought against Juncker over his role in the tax avoidance schemes. The motion was defeated by a large majority.”

All the big corporations, channelling their profits through a place where they have little more than a mail-drop letterbox, depriving the states where the money is earned of taxing their profits, in bespoke agreements negotiated by the man who is now the President of the European Commision… But no, let’s take aim at the distant sombrero-wearers instead!

P.S. Whenever this stuff pops up on the telly here they have to resort to animated ‘infographics’ to make it intelligible, and the zig-zagging arrows representing money-flow across the globe always seem to pause for a rest in London, Jersey & the Isle of Man.

Now that money is just a number on a spreadsheet, any government can create as much money as it needs, simply by typing in a different number. The only restriction is that if they overdo it, inflation will rise.

It was different in the days when gold had to be mined, or even when paper notes had to be printed.

So is the purpose of tax simply to punish some people for being rich ?

Which kind of begs the question, if “money is just a number on a spreadsheet, any government can create as much money as it needs”, why doesn’t the government make us all equally rich and just leave us to get on with it? Or if money is that meaningless, why not just abolish it and provide everything we need?

I’ve been down the ‘where does money come from?’ rabbit-hole a couple of times but had to admit defeat in the end: it’s beyond me. But I think those who profess to know the answer would say that it is the banks – not the governments – who create it (and have the governments over a barrel as they need to borrow it to survive). Er, and then there’ll be something about bloodlines & hook-nosed wizards and I retreat back my ignorance… which is where I’m off now.

Essentially we now have a new form of Fascism where corporations , bankers etc really do control much of the world and politicians are mere playthings in their hands. It’s the much heralded New World Order sneaked in ages ago under the noses of the Truther Movement who conveniently diverted attention with their Satanic VIP Cults obsessions on Youtube and social media. The conspiracy is complete.

There’s an interesting synergy emerging however wherein the USA levies massive fines on international banks and other organisations such as FIFA or whoever, and swallows the money into it’s own treasury so far as can be told. Much of this seems based on US laws with international reach reach, rather than secret societies. This possibly explains Putin’s fairly recent unpopularity as he has told them to fork off. The same internationalism that spawns Yuman Rites also lies behind the spread of “the law”.

QE was the gov buying its own pre-sold bonds back from the banks. The banks got the dosh, the gov got bonds of the same value as the cash, and didn’t have to pay the interest they otherwise would have. Cost neutral, except they saved 30 billion of interest. Banks operate “fractional reserve banking” where their lending exceeds their deposits, by about 9:1 I think. Of course, they also have your borrowings on the asset side of their balance sheet. So while they lent you nothing, you get to pay them charges and interest on the no cash they gave you. I personally think Brown should have just bought the banks assets and let the rest sink…that would have protected the mortgages…still, what do I know?

Meaning Wall St & London City CRIMINAL Banksters. Failed but too BIG to jail while trashing World economies and then blaming VICTIMS like the modern EU for not coping, also with the US/UK ‘Terror’ Banksters’ mid-East BIG mess, mass deaths, millions of migrants, outbreaks of terror-bums, referendumbs-down, et al.

The media, running on Labour’s agenda of greed and envy, are banging on about tax avoidance and evasion; what we really need to see are the amounts the dictators Labour’s endowed with the fruits of Empire in their rush to create their wretched socialist World after the War have salted away.

These funds will not be related to tax but will consist of generous aid provided by America and other advanced countries for the benefit of now benighted peoples and stolen by Labour’s cronies.

The USA lend money ? It’s into hock to China for $100s Trillions. I’m amazed that even Americans don’t seem to understand they now live int he most debt laden empire on the planet. If the USA lends money to anyone it means they are borrowing it from someone else.

I think a bit of research into sectoral balances would be of use. Here is a reasonably concise, if simple, explanation: http://www.coppolacomment.com/2015/03/repeat-after-me-sectoral-balances-must.html The hoarding of trillions of whatever in non-productive stagnant-storage has massive implications far beyond the reduction of income taxation. Especially if that hoarding is done to deliberately cause those problems.

I have an offshore account. There’s nothing sinister about it. It’s a simple matter of practicality when you have assets and live in several countries and need to transfer more than 5K at a time between jurisdictions, which is the limit UK high street banks put on money transfers. To prevent ‘money laundering’, allegedly.

So did I whilst in France Bill. It was an annual amusement to declare it to the local tax office, proffering my bank statement at the same time to prove that it was not an interest bearing account. The reaction was always rewarding – fascination at hearing somebody declaring an off shore account – combined with an almost physical reluctance to actually touch the paper statement, as though even momentary contact with such a dangerous object might cause trouble for them in the future….

But that’s slightly different to say Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd empire or Google Inc ( and many more) that are artificially based in countries were they do not do business and via a complicated scheme of so-called ‘loans’ to themselves , pay massive interest on those loans (to themselves) to minimize the appearance profits and thus, as Murdoch does, pay zero tax in the countries where his profits come from- the USA, UK and Australia. In fact so successful is Murdoch & Co in this that he managed after a 10 year fight ( better lawyers) with the Australian Tax Office to get the Australian government to pay him over $800M because of his alleged losses.

I’m not too happy with that sort of thing either. However, it’s Anna’s blog, she can write what she likes, and we can sod off if we don’t like it. She writes so well 99% of the time that I give her some slack and stay for the good stuff. Anyway, I don’t expect to agree totally with anybody.

There’s a world of difference between well-chosen words for the clear purpose of humour (“Does my bomb look big in this?” – good line) and using disparaging phrases with evident rancour towards particular groups. I would classify this example simply as some cleverly-wordsmithed humour, which I applaud, and it would be pandering further to the ‘perpetually offendeds’ to seek to limit such usage in this sort of place. I’m sure any offence is merely in the over-sensitive eyes of the reader and not on the keyboard of the writer.

Long past time to learn the not so subtle difference between anti social Monster Commies, Monstrous anti social rabid Right/wrong uns, and truly pro social (small ‘s’) lumpen Lefties. Like pro social hapless Corbyn & Sanders with about as much chance of beating the anti social US/UK Monster Murdochized rabid Right/wrong uns media, as woz hapless Olde Lab Pillock Kinnock in May ’92, “Its the SUN WOT Won it!”

When I came across the headlines concerning the Panama Papers I read most of them from the usual suspects, i.e. BBC/Guardian etc.

*Then* I went searching for worldwide headlines and wot d’ya know: A culprit mentioned time and time again in the *overseas* headlines appears to be the son of Kofi Annan. I am reely surprised that my trusted news provider of choice, for which I pay a small fortune every 12 months from my meagre pension, has happened to miss this person. Is it ‘cos he is bl*ck?

I do wish I could easily cancel my subscription to my no longer trusted news provider of choice.

Unjaundiced hopeful Henry Wood still promenading in concert with ANY bent mainstream media?

Not least the BritBrainCrap now 3 decades short of a true D.G. since Milne was summarily sacked by rabid Right/wrong un Thatcher’s axeman (well named ) Hussey in Jan ’87.

As for the increasingly short of inconvenient facts sadly Murdochized-Grauniad, but for fearless peerless John Pilger. Among their few recent great facts one was from their ex-Times/SUN-in-drag Dan Sabbagh on his impatient old Pimp rabid Rupe in Leverson’s High Court utterly contemptuously grunting to his whore lawyer, “Let’s get him (Justice Leverson) to get this fucking thing done today!”

And one more (just as an excuse to post the photo): “Among prominent South Africans already mentioned in the leak is Khulubuse Zuma, the nephew of President Jacob Zuma who is a controversial businessman, having previously taken over, then forced into bankruptcy, a mining firm which led to the loss of thousands of jobs.”

People avoiding taxes? If the governments didn’t set taxes so high, nobody would bother avoiding them. As Anna mentions – ISAs – legal ways of encouraging people to avoid taxes. I think this will run and run, but I hope it moves on to a genuine discussion about why taxes are so high, and why governments spend so much of other people’s money.

The self-employed already avail themselves of ‘tax breaks’ that those on the company payroll can not access – that new car (needed for ‘travel related to business’), the new ‘work’ outfit, & the wining ‘n’ dining on a weekend that goes down as a ‘meeting’!

Not quite the same as parking £100M in a tax haven, money you didn’t pay tax on in the first place but made using all the facilities the UK provides that must be paid for by someone. That’s money that actually sits in a London bank under the name of some obscure Panamanian company that exists in a tiny room in a run-down building in Panama City along with a few 1000 other like entities.

Honestly, pick-pocketing was a crime I have had to be aware of in the many places I’ve visiting but since I left the UK it seems Brits openly invite their wallets to be riffled and when the theft is pointed out to them makes endless excuses for the thief. Most odd.

One man’s ‘acceptable dodge’ is another’s ‘morally reprehensible act’, though. Several year’s ago, Amazon started offering cheap CDs to its UK-customers – they’d found a ‘dodge’ and set-up a warehouse in Jersey (from memory) which meant they could lop off a fair sum from the retail price, money the government would otherwise have collected via taxes.

I’m afraid that I bought several, in the full knowledge of what I was engaging in – ordering ‘offshore’! There was nothing illegal about it at the time, though the government moved to close the loophole being exploited, bringing the whole thing to an end. As the purchase of an over-priced CD for me was always something of a luxury or ‘treat’, I don’t feel particularly guilty.

The question of money being parked in havens when the shits “didn’t pay tax on [it] in the first place” is still to be clarified; I doubt the money amassed by drug-lords & tin-pot dictators will have been taxed at source – proceeds of crime, basically – but I imagine most of what’s being talked about will have been taxed (at least once!) before coming to ‘rest’.

My beef with these types of ‘data dumps’ is that no distinction is made between the seriously criminal & say, the international sports star living & working (and paying taxes) in a country other than his birth, but who earns sponsorship money worldwide & is advised to ‘protect’ his wealth (which will dry-up within a few short years) by his advisers…

The reason taxes are so high are to pay for the trappings of civilisation. You can opt out of that and move to a third World Country, like Afghanistan, where there are no ‘trappings’, and pay very little, if any tax? The money you earn is not really ‘yours’, you are only able to earn it, and live to spend it, because you live in a first World Country, protected by police, Army, and ‘civilisation’.

Only if you have ‘gained’ your money, in a lawless, unhealthy Country, with few trappings of ‘civilisation’, like say Columbia, in South America, and have lived to the ripe old age of 30, without being ‘gunned down’, can the money truly be called ‘yours’.

Your ideas about economics are even more stupid than your ravings about non-existent supposed paedos.

Taxation is theft. Money taken by the scum of the state under threat of violence. Poorly hidden behind sanctimonious socialistic crap about widows n’orphans & schools n’ ‘ospitals.

The state takes your money, puts a huge wedge in the pockets of themselves and all their little friends and favoured clients, and then urinates most of the rest up the wall apart from the amounts they use to actively harm you. Such as paying for domestic and international police state tyranny and importing 3rd world thugs to lower the quality of your life and ultimately wipe you out. And needless wars and subsidisesof eco-freak piddle-power and HS2 toy-train sets and on and on.

Protected by police army etc ? Says the loon whose favourite soapbox is how the coppers couldn’t bring down and didn’t even know about entire Secret Armies of (non-existent) child-molesting perverts.

A bit extreme to call tax theft but if you agree with taxation then you are on the way to being a part-time Socialist. After all you are forced to pay money to the state so it can spread that money about by paying for a whole lot of services from building roads, paying police forces and politicians expenses. The whole notion of paying tax is a an anathema to the hard right .

All the “services” they provide could be better provided by free markets and free exchange. Their crap schools and hospitals (see Anna’s numerous postings on the mercies of the NHS) are an example of all the good things they provide. My poor car has the shit knocked out of it driving along the poxy potholed roads that they take 32 billion a year in road tax for. And spend only a quarter of that on the roads. Much more important to hand out cash to 3rd world socialist ratholes and fight wars that are sod all to do with us but provide an excuse for the hated ( by middle-class Marxist scum) white working class to be destroyed by imported migrants.

The USA is the prime example of a ‘Free Market ‘ economy that has escalated out of control since Bill Clinton ( as did Tony Blair) put Reaganism into top gear. If you were once part of the rapidly diminishing Middle Class that boomed under FDR’s policies or working class it’s basically a mess.

What you are arguing about is how a government spends the money they raise through taxes which is not the same.and you have weaved a whole lot of other political problems into the mix.

It’s very simple- if corporations who make enormous profits in a country were made pay their fair share of tax in that country there would be no NHS problems. I am currently being treated for several medical problems under Australia’s universal health care Medicare and the service I am receiving is far better than when I sat through my US pal’s private health care when he had cancer. I don’t see Canadians complaining about their universal health care. Mismanagement does not mean the system is wrong quite apart from Blair’s ( continued by Brown & Cameron) disastrous part-privatisation of the NHS.

The “if we all paid our FAIR SHARE life would be rosy” crap is not only untrue, it is the exact opposite of the truth.

If all humans were gutless enough to hand over whatever was demanded the demands would rise and rise. The only thing that stops thieves is either when they have stolen everything and there is nothing left to steal or people stand up and stop the thieving bastards.

I can’t comment about your pal’s personal services. But the US does not have a “free market” in health care. The Medicare/Medicaid crap long ago fucked up the US system and Obama’s crap will destroy what is left. In the mean time US health markers are still better than the lovely NHS. Throat cancer survival rates in the US are twice those of the UK. And Canada’s system is coercive and fled by lots of Canucks who go to the US ( while they still can) for private treatment without the long delays that the Canadian system is full of.

I’m reading so many myths on here that have been repeated ad infininitum like mantras over the decades. Under right wing governments ( the USA & UK have now only had right-wing governments for the last 20 years ) bureaucracy & Big Government has expanded alarmingly.

Mr Ecks, It cannot be ‘theft’, as it is not ‘your money’. If you had been born in Etheopia, I guarantee that you would be as poor as a Church Mouse. The only reason you have any money at all, is because you were born into a first World country, not because you are a, ‘clever man’.

David, if your money is not, er, your money, and cannot, therefore, be stolen from you, then I’m afraid the temptation to help myself to some of it (when you provide the scans mentioned above) may be too great to resist! I’ll get started on my shopping-list…

David is correct. Being born into a rich Western country is like winning the lottery. Being born into Britain which has benefited from 100s of years of looting the world’s riches is no different. Whether you can make the most of that is up to individual ability but reality is you are 1000 steps ahead of being born into the Third World.

It was in fact Thatcher who squandered billions of pounds of Britain’s oil revenue on tax cuts for city boys to keep herself in office. That money should have been spent on UK infrastructure, transport, housing, health, flood defenses, etc. Instead the money was in turn frittered away by city boys on champagne lifestyles. We will never see that sort of money again in the UK.

Private hospitals in the UK are subsidized by the NHS, because they do not have A&E departments. Every time an operation goes wrong in a private hospital here, the patient is rushed to an NHS hospital who patch up the blunders as best they can. Private hospitals in the UK should be forced to have A&Es, insurance costs would rocket, and people would see how expensive private health care really is.

I never quite understand the argument about private insurance or education, surely you are paying twice? Saving. school places and beds. When my husband was alive he had insurance through his employer and when self employed we always had insurance as he couldn’t afford time off. Of course you are also paying full N.I. so in the event of an emergency you are fully entitled to all NHS facilities, more so than those who pay nothing. We both had one major surgery over the 30 year period which saved the NHS quite a lot of money, fortunately all went well and of course we were treated by NHS Consultants as they are allowed to treat private patients. I did have a bleed after my surgery and the consultant came out at 11 pm on a Friday to sort it. I have no complaints about the NHS treatment I have had either, given my age I couldn’t afford to keep insurance going when my husband died as the costs rise sharply with age. I think if you can afford to go privately and want to you shouldn’t be criticised for it.

Education takes good teachers away from the state schools, however I believe that all schools should be boarding schools, leaving parents free to get on with their lives. If you want to take the risk of having operations in private hospitals, then that is fine. However when things go wrong during these operations, patients often die while being transferred to NHS A&E hospitals. The NHS also has to regularly patch up private hospital operations that go wrong later, infections, bad surgery etc.

@David however I believe that all schools should be boarding schools, leaving parents free to get on with their lives. As usual I am slow on the uptake …..Ho Hum you can confirm to David I have Aspergers …..but really David how comes you think you can speak as to how others should live their lives even in respect of their children.

David; utter Carp (or Gudgeon, possibly a Tench load of Dace). The UK’s public education system ‘loses’ good teachers all the time, it needs no assistance from the private sector. I write as one married to a very good and highly experienced educator. I’ve seen what she can do with kids, but the UK education system seems geared to forcing those who can do the job well, out.

Jesus, that big-gobbed Jess Philips MP – an upcoming star of Labour, we are told/warned – is exceedingly annoying:

“To use the words of the Prime Minister, ‘let me be clear’: The sins of Daddy Cameron were not illegal but they are utterly disgusting. They are worse than the sins of fathers up and down the country who can’t find work, even the most feckless amongst them.”

It’s weary rubbish like that that’ll have me rubbing my hands when her inevitable Danczukian-downfall comes.

Nascent nepotism – she’s only been an MP for less than a year but has already found time to employ an ‘office manager’ at public expense, and the successful candidate who beat off all the others just happened to be her husband. Utterly disgusting! (And I’ve just realised who she replaced as MP for Yardley… interesting.)

I’m not sure ISAs are an appropriate comparison, as there are obviously very clear rules governing how much an individual can put into them in any one year. In addition, at the moment they are almost the most worthless investment around (although they may pay off in the long run).

This weekend I shall be filling in my self-assessment, and expect to get a small rebate (in the region of £50) as my non-day job has shown a small loss for this year. Next year I expect the exact opposite to be the case, at least. I do not, though, have the option of minimising the tax on my main income to as near to zero as makes no odds. I would have to earn a hell of a lot more to be able to do that.

The Fly in the Ointment in all this is the assumption that Mossack Fonseca are a honest and ethical law firm. I’ve been to Panama a few times. It was pretty corrupt and run-down before the US invasion but now it looks quite respectable. It’s still riven with corruption though. It’s one of those countries ( Thailand is another) I only use my ‘special’ credit card in , the one that has a small credit balance as no matter where I’ve stayed, endless charges keep rolling in.

The very notion of opening a bank account in Panama wouldn’t cross my mind but of course none of this money is actually in Panama. It’s all sitting in UK. USA & Swiss banks and owned by those 1000s of corporations run out of the offices of Mossack Fonesca which for a high flying law firm in Panama City which now has beautiful gleaming towers, has chosen to base itself in a nondescript building in a less than stellar part of town.

Does it all matter. The money is no use sitting in a bank. It’s only of use if it gets spent. And obviously, if they have oodles of it sitting in banks, they have nothing they need. Of course, Barclays may have good reason to have 400 companies registered in countries where they do no business at all, and have no staff…what do I know? Why should I care. I just let people rant on about ” loonies lefties”, secure in the knowledge that there are few of them. We have never had a “socialist” government, maybe a few pseudo-socialist govts, but in the main, they have all been various flavours of right-wing since forever! And if people don’t want to pay tax, maybe they should start a “tax-free” party and vote taxes out. Or go to that bastion of free trade and demonocracy, the US of A, where men are men, healthcare is a right if you can afford it, education is a costly, and legislated, necessity, and you also get to pay taxes. If you don’t like, or don’t want, to pay taxes in the UK, you can always excercise you democratic option and depart. If you have the money..

And where do they spend it? Exactly how much of UK economic activity is due to govt spending? The larger majority of economists have long been saying that, in a time of recession/depression, austerity is the wrong policy. Still, what do they know. After all, our chancellor has an arts degree and can fold towels properly. Maybe we should let “industry” do it all. Except, after a lifetime spent in Britisn industry, I remain firmly of the opinion that without being told what to do, most managers would crap with their pants still on. Everything the govt spends goes to people to earn. And comes back as revenue. Which includes benefits. Of which the state pension is by far the largest, by several miles.

Thinking laterally. GDP = £1.8 trillion Gov spends 40% = £720 billion Obviously, some departs these shores. Lots stays here. Let’s get rid of the govt. Who runs the shop. Someone will. Suppose we let “the corporations” run it. After all, they know their business. Lots of disasters, claiming lots of lives and causing massive env damage testify that, even with regulations, corporations pay no attention to laws, and less to people. Even minimalist control is better than none at all (although with TTIP heading to the start line, we could end up with corporate democracy) Govt spending generates activity, and hence jobs and revenue. Of FAR greater concern is the current account deficit. Unless sorted it will sink us.

Unfortunately, we are stuck in a prison of sociocapitalism. Where people don’t want to pay taxes, don’t want to buy health insurance, don’t want big govt (or any government), can’t understand why their minuscule private pension performs so badly, even though their investment team and advisor are so well paid (never mind the £38 billion pension subsidy, without which the pension industry UK would be dead and gone), and can’t wipe their own arses without a “how to wipe your own arse 101”, usually published by HM govt. then there is “privatised” rail, where the companies rent the rolling stock, or are given it for a handshake and beer. Capitalism doesn’t exist in the UK, or Europe, which is why US industry has a level of productivity 50% higher than most..and it never will, because of the above ^^^

Just an hour ago, while on holiday I bought a magnificent Panama hat, to add to my collection of ‘headgear’. Foldable, hand made, it was a veritable bargain, once I had haggled the merchant down from North of 300 Euros to under a sixth of that… After all, I could have legitimately used the ‘In the UK I pay all my taxes’ argument to justify the discount price for cas,here in foreign climes.

A little bit of tax avoidance perhaps, or…tax evasion?

I think the whole matter of tax avoidance vs tax evasion largely depends on who is doing it… No one has much sympathy with Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of Wherever…. she of the famous ‘haven’t got a pot to piss in’ quote. Her experience of being ‘flat broke’ is very probably at variance with the average cardboard box dwelling street person.

It may be legal, but for those of us who could never aspire to end up in the 40% or greater tax bracket it seems to level the playing field somewhat.

Catching up on some of the new threads here. Whilst I can agree on many subjects, this one I find I am distressed by so many people who think it is fine to create inflationary measures on the money supply and find it acceptable that income is stolen from the poorer (not poor or destitute) members of society.

I quote a previous post from another site below

When Green bought BHS in May 2000, the group’s fund was in surplus. In the year to March 2001, accounts for BHS Group filed at Companies House indicate a surplus of at least £5m and a year later that had risen to £12.2m. But when pension trustees wrote to members in December last year, they warned that the company’s two funds had a combined deficit of £225.6m

After buying the business in May 2000, shareholders extracted just over £422m in dividends between 2002 and 2004 – the vast majority of which went to Green’s family. A company controlled by Green also earned nearly £10m in interest payments from a £19.5m subordinated bond issued to BHS in May 2000. The retail entrepreneur Philip Green has banked £1.2bn after awarding himself the biggest pay cheque in British corporate history. The huge dividend has come from the Arcadia fashion business, which has 2,000 outlets and spans high street names including Top Shop, Wallis and Burton. It is more than four times the group’s pre-tax profits of £253m.

The billionaire revealed a £1.3bn payout yesterday as he unveiled Arcadia’s annual results. Mr Green owns 92% of the business and will therefore receive £1.17bn. The balance will go to the banking group HBOS, which bankrolled his purchase of the business for £850m three years ago and owns 8% of the shares.

The entrepreneur’s payday is nearly £100m more than the previous record. Last year the steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal paid himself a £1.1bn bonus after merging his two businesses, Ispat International and LNM Holdings.

Mr Green’s £1.2bn will not be taxed as it will be paid to his wife, Tina, who lives in Monaco. Mrs Green is the direct owner of Arcadia.

Now if I was an employee of BHS I’d be a little pissed off, this man has paid off his total cost of purchase Arcadia in one year, paid no tax and robbed the pension fund in the process of approx £250m.

He’s not the only one and all the money that disappears off shore from the money supply is inevitably refilled with additional printed money that on a local level, at least, devalues the money in your pocket. These funds that are lost could be making those hospitals (that you complain about) much better, they could fill the holes in our own state pension system. But instead they are ripped out and put into accounts off shore – and for what – a rainy day? Mr Green has already paid himself a £billion dividend in at least one of the previous years, he has a home in Monaco , one of the most expensive places in the world and presumably has homes elsewhere too. Thus it can only be greed and avarice and people defend such activities.

You may be able to do nothing about it – but you don’t have to defend the process.

In the meantime our European masters rob countries like Greece by bribing their leaders to indebt the country to the eyeballs and then place their own project management teams to build large scale projects thus bringing the bacon back home and leaving them with a debt they can subsequently ill afford to pay back but keep them just about managing the interest payments. This cash they then store on off shore sites through banks like Deutsche Bank.